Odu-Dua Housing Association Limited (202317449)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202317449
Odu-Dua Housing Association Limited
18 February 2025
Our approach
The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.
Background
- The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 3 February 1993. The property is a 2 bedroom flat and the resident lives with her 3 adult children and 1 grandchild.
- On 3 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to say it was undertaking a review of its transfer register, which the resident was on, and therefore asked the resident to complete an application form if she wished to still be on the register.
- On 23 August 2022, following receipt of the application, the landlord informed the resident it could not include her adult children in her application as per its transfer policy.
- The resident wrote to the landlord to appeal this on 7 September 2022. She said she had been on the list for ages. She had contacted the landlord recently, via her daughter, about 2 properties which had become available in her building, and it was following this that she received the letter from the landlord saying it was reviewing the register. The resident said it seemed unfair and that it was a sensitive subject which required understanding rather than the landlord following its policies.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 September 2023 to inform her that the appeal had been unsuccessful and, in line with its transfer policy, it had no obligation to re-house non-dependants.
- The resident made a formal complaint on 26 October 2022 in which she said she could only conclude that the landlord had discriminated against her and her family. She said she had seen the landlord “bend policies” before when needed and its oversight showed no compassion. She asked why the landlord had offered her daughter a property viewing previously as that was a clear sign that it acknowledged both her age and the overcrowding.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 October 2022. It summarised the resident’s complaint and said the outcome the resident was looking for would not be achieved because the landlord had a limited stock of properties which meant they had a limited number of properties that become available.
- The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 15 November 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 November 2022, the key points were as follows:
- The advice it had given the resident was correct and conformed to its policies.
- It accepted that there had been occasions where the landlord had made exceptions to the policy, which the resident was aware of. It explained that there were special circumstances which led to that exception.
- That exception resulted in the landlord considering 1 of the resident’s adult children for rehousing which albeit did not result in rehousing in the end. The landlord said the fact it had offered that in the first place, did not point to the landlord discriminating against the resident.
- To conclude, it said it would place the resident on the transfer list. It confirmed the resident was eligible for a 4 bedroom property.
- The landlord said it did not have many 4 bed properties in its stock and therefore did not wish to raise the resident’s expectations. It said vacancies in larger family units were rare.
- The landlord confirmed the resident’s place on the transfer list on 23 November 2022. The landlord said it could not guarantee it would offer the resident alternative housing as it had limited opportunities to offer her. It confirmed that it operated a strict policy of 1 reasonable offer of a property.
- The resident responded to this on 17 March 2023. She said she was grateful for the banding but that it was a bitter pill swallow, and she did not accept that she should just wait. She said the landlord had not taken on board the family’s trauma or wellbeing. She said she wished to discuss a split household and asked the landlord to consider offering her adult children 1 bedroom properties as a gesture of goodwill.
- A landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint on 18 April 2023. It confirmed it had overturned the decision not to include the resident’s adult children in the transfer application. It confirmed it had no prospect of rehousing the resident’s children in their own 1 bedroom properties as it would not be fair on the many others waiting for housing with greater need than the resident’s daughters. It confirmed the housing team would help the resident.
- The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 14 August 2023 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s actions in relation to her housing application and she felt discriminated against.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident had accused the landlord of being discriminatory. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place as these are legal terms which are better suited for a Court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of discrimination.
- The resident had been on the landlord’s transfer register sine 2016. In her complaint she raised that both when she had made the original application and, in its correspondence, in 2019 it had not informed her that she did not meet the criteria for a transfer. The resident in her formal complaint also raised that the landlord had offered her daughter a property viewing in 2020 and said this was evidence that it accepted overcrowding in her property. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction sets out that we cannot consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally 12 months. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot consider the above issues and any mention of these are for context only.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application
- It should be explained at the outset that it is not for the Ombudsman to determine a resident’s eligibility for a housing transfer or to decide which property might or might not be suitable. In assessing how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a transfer, it is for the Ombudsman to consider if the landlord has acted in accordance with all relevant policies, that it has exercised any discretion fairly and that it has responded to the resident’s concerns in a way which has been fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 August 2022 as it was undertaking a review of its transfer register. The landlord is entitled to review its transfer register to ensure it is correct and therefore, this request was reasonable.
- Following the landlord’s refusal of the resident’s application, the resident said the landlord had not previously said it would not consider her adult children in the application. She also said in her appeal request that the landlord had not informed her there was an age restriction. However, in the letter sent to the resident advising of the review of the transfer register, it clearly says that it could not rehouse adult children who live with a resident. While the Ombudsman understands that the resident had been on the transfer register for some time, the landlord had advised the resident to read its “guide to transfers” and set out the provisions of its policy with regards to children in the letter.
- In the landlord’s appeal decision, it accepted that it had rewritten some of its policies in 2019 and 2021 to reflect the definition of a child being a minor under the age of 18 and it had not informed the resident of this. While it was reasonable of the landlord to accept it had not informed the resident of a change at the time, it would be unreasonable to expect a landlord to communicate all policy changes to its residents at every change. The landlord had guided the resident to its transfer policy and set out its position with regards to adult children in the original letter.
- The landlord’s explanation given in its appeal letter of its reasoning for not accepting the resident’s transfer request at that stage was accurate and in line with its policy. It was appropriate of the landlord to apply its policy with regards to adult children in determining the merits of the resident’s application.
- Furthermore, it helpfully gave the resident advice on the other options available to her with regards to housing for both her and her adult children.
- In its Stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged making exceptions to its transfer policy in the past. However, it provided a clear explanation for these exceptions. Landlords have the discretion to consider each housing application individually, and this discretion does not obligate them to apply the same exception to every resident. The landlord clearly explained why it deviated from its policy on that occasion.
- After reviewing the resident’s complaint, the landlord reversed its decision not to rehouse the adult children. Although the resident felt the landlord should have made this decision, the landlord is entitled to follow its policy when considering property applications. Initially, the landlord adhered to its policy, but after the complaint, it used its discretion to approve the resident’s application. The time between these decisions was minimal, making the landlord’s actions reasonable under the circumstances.
- The landlord appropriately set out that it had limited stock of 4 bedroom properties and that availability of such properties was extremely rare. This helped to manage the resident’s expectations.
- The landlord, as with all registered providers of social housing, has a legal obligation to assist local authorities in providing housing to priority applicants, which it does through its nomination agreement. The landlord’s transfer policy also makes clear that properties are subject to availability, and it cannot guarantee it will have housing stock available to meet the needs of a resident.
- The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted reasonably in managing the resident’s expectations from the outset as to how likely and quickly a suitable 4 bedroom property might become available.
- However, to address this lack of availability it would have been reasonable for the landlord to recommend that the resident cast her net wider, both in terms of including additional areas of preference and exploring other options for transfer, including applying to the local authority, with which it could have offered to help.
- The resident asked that as a gesture of goodwill the landlord consider offering her adult children 1 bedroom properties; the landlord declined this. Landlords do not have finite stock of houses, as it had already explained. At this stage the landlord had already overturned its decision and granted the resident’s transfer application, it was therefore reasonable of it not to consider re-housing the children.
- In her complaint, the resident raised that the landlord had discriminated against her. When receiving such complaints, the landlord should complete a full and thorough investigation into the claims. In this case, the landlord reviewed the evidence available and concluded that it had not been discriminatory towards the resident. It highlighted why it felt it had not discriminated against the resident and provided evidence which it felt supported this claim.
- Based on the evidence provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to say that it could not conclude its actions were discriminatory.
- Overall, the landlord adhered to its transfer policy when deciding not to include the resident’s adult children, as outlined in the original review letter. However, after receiving more information from the resident, the landlord used its discretion to overturn its decision and granted the resident’s request. The landlord’s handling of the application was reasonable given the circumstances.
- Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.